moral question

[Alceste]

What will that turn into?

Following your logic, menstruation is murder and male masturbation is a downright massacre.

 

[Alceste]

After reading the OP I thought this was a really silly thread, but after reading the responses I think Auto has made a really good point. If religion makes it difficult for people to stand up and say killing babies is wrong then there is a big problem with religion.

Honestly, I didn't think I was going to wake up today and see someone argue that it's better to murder human infants than let them grow up pagan.

That's what I like about RF. Full of surprises.

 

[Tarheeler]

And that's a good thing! Progress is always nice.

It doesn't address the theological problem, though, of worshiping a God who commands it.

If you take out the passages commanding, describing and celebrating such bloody campaigns, you reduce the Tanakh considerably.

I never said I thought God commanded it.

And I didn't say I take the passages out. It's similar to the creation story of Genesis or the account of the flood; I don't take either literally but still think they should be there.

Shouldn't god's mercy, justice and righteousness supersede human culture?

Sorry, but we apparently have much different opinions on how God operates.
You seem to think God directly controls man's actions; I don't.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm sorry, but I'm not arguing that God told them to do it.

I probably could have explained my example better. As values and ideas change, so do our perception and interpretation.
The ancient Israelites might have thought God told them to do it; but it doesn't fit with what I see God as today.

My bold.
So, in other words, you don't think God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the babies. You believe it most likely that they were mistaken, because your concept of God does not include one that would command the murder of infants.

And I didn't say I take the passages out. It's similar to the creation story of Genesis or the account of the flood; I don't take either literally but still think they should be there.

I am still unclear as to your usage of "literal". When you juxtapose it with the Creation and Flood story, that makes me think you are taking these historical accounts to be metaphorical, since that is how people take the Creation/Flood story if they don't think it's literal. But you have already firmly denied that you are taking these passages as "metaphorical". What exactly does "not literal" mean to you?

 

[Falvlun]

I'm not so sure it would. Your presupposition is obstructing your ability to reason.

You claimed that the OT laws do not effect Christians because the NT explains a new covenant between God and humans, through the sacrifice of Jesus, which fulfilled the law and therefore you are no longer bound to it. You then claimed that this was a case of an OT law that Christians no longer have to deal with, so it is ridiculous to bring it up. Am I with you so far?

The problem is that this is not a case of an OT law; it is a (supposedly) historical account of what God told his people to do in a specific case. The NT changed how God interacts with people; it does not mean that the previous interactions that occured in the OT never took place.

Now, are you able to respond to this argument, or are you only able to pretend that you have a response to this argument?

 

[Falvlun]

Many cultures have thought nothing of leaving a newborn to die of exposure, whether it be for sexual selection or population control.
Were they morally right?
And by whose standards?

Look at it this way, many ancient Greeks found the most honorable thing to do for their dead was to burn them on a pyre.
Certain tribes in India at the same time believed the most honorable thing to do was to eat those they most respected.
When they met, they each found the others funeral practices barbaric and immoral.

While we may condemn those old societies who left their newborns to die of exposure, what would they say of allowing children to be malnourished, or to be carted off to foster homes because their parents are not prepared, or are simply unfit. They would more than likely find the practice barbaric and immoral.

I am not condoning infanticide, especially since social norms are moving towards a more global uniformity, but when reading stories from 2,400+ years ago, it is important to remember that those people have little in common with society today.
This works both ways. When attempting to force outdated moral codes on modern society, and when attempting to force modern morality codes onto an ancient book of religion and fables.

It has nothing to do with the primitive tribe, but everything to do with the God who was purportedly commanding that tribe.

I think it reasonable to expect that a God does not suffer from the same lack of perspective that humans do.

 

[paolops181]

killing babies is wrong. But babies born dead is fine(ecc.6:3-4).

 

[tumbleweed41]

Many cultures have thought nothing of leaving a newborn to die of exposure, whether it be for sexual selection or population control.
Were they morally right?
And by whose standards?

Look at it this way, many ancient Greeks found the most honorable thing to do for their dead was to burn them on a pyre.
Certain tribes in India at the same time believed the most honorable thing to do was to eat those they most respected.
When they met, they each found the others funeral practices barbaric and immoral.

While we may condemn those old societies who left their newborns to die of exposure, what would they say of allowing children to be malnourished, or to be carted off to foster homes because their parents are not prepared, or are simply unfit. They would more than likely find the practice barbaric and immoral.

I am not condoning infanticide, especially since social norms are moving towards a more global uniformity, but when reading stories from 2,400+ years ago, it is important to remember that those people have little in common with society today.
This works both ways. When attempting to force outdated moral codes on modern society, and when attempting to force modern morality codes onto an ancient book of religion and fables.

It has nothing to do with the primitive tribe, but everything to do with the God who was purportedly commanding that tribe.

I think it reasonable to expect that a God does not suffer from the same lack of perspective that humans do.

I agree that the acts attributed to God in the OT are reason enough to reject that concept of God.
What I am saying is, it is unreasonable to expect the same morality from an ancient tribe of nomads as in modern society.
Just as it is unreasonable to force those ancient moral codes on modern society.

 

[Tarheeler]

My bold.
So, in other words, you don't think God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the babies. You believe it most likely that they were mistaken, because your concept of God does not include one that would command the murder of infants.

Nope. I believe it is most likely that they incorporated their religion into their customs.

I am still unclear as to your usage of "literal". When you juxtapose it with the Creation and Flood story, that makes me think you are taking these historical accounts to be metaphorical, since that is how people take the Creation/Flood story if they don't think it's literal. But you have already firmly denied that you are taking these passages as "metaphorical". What exactly does "not literal" mean to you?

It means that I don't take it as an actual event or the actual words of God.

Just because of that, however, doesn't necessarily mean there is some hidden meaning we're supposed to figure out. Sometimes a story is just a story. Literature, both religious and not, from around the world is the same; sometimes there more to it and sometimes there's not.

Not literal does not equal metaphorical.

 

[Falvlun]

I agree that the acts attributed to God in the OT are reason enough to reject that concept of God.
What I am saying is, it is unreasonable to expect the same morality from an ancient tribe of nomads as in modern society.
Just as it is unreasonable to force those ancient moral codes on modern society.

Agreed. Mostly.

I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that killing babies was ever right.

 

[Rakhel]

The question in the OP was:

Killing babies: right or wrong?

Not "Do you think G-d told them it was ok to kill babies?" "Not if the leader of your nation told you to kill babies, would you?"(Which, I think, is a much better question)

The death of infants at any time in history, or even in the present, has a very well known term. It is called "collateral damage" and is considered perfectly acceptable by those we chose to follow.

 

[Falvlun]

Nope. I believe it is most likely that they incorporated their religion into their customs.

I don't understand how this is different from what I'm saying. Either God told the Israelites to slaughter babies or he didn't. If he didn't, then the Israelites must have thought God told them to do it (since they wrote down that God told them to do it). If this was the case, then they were mistaken (since God never actually told them to do it; they just thought he did since they were "incorporating their religion into their customs.")

It means that I don't take it as an actual event or the actual words of God.

Just because of that, however, doesn't necessarily mean there is some hidden meaning we're supposed to figure out. Sometimes a story is just a story. Literature, both religious and not, from around the world is the same; sometimes there more to it and sometimes there's not.

Not literal does not equal metaphorical.

So, you don't think there is absolutely any purpose to the story of the Israelites slaughtering the Amekelite babies? The Jews just made the whole thing up for no reason. It's just some light reading before bedtime.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The laws that govern Judaism are no more observed by Christians as the laws that govern islam. Christians do not observe the sabbath, we do not sacrifice animals, we do not kill people that violate scripture. We are not Judaism. Judaism and Christianity are not the same. How many times do you have to be told that. Just ask an orthodox Jew if they accept the laws of the new testament. Just ask them if they even think the new testament is divinely inspired. This passage is irrelevant to Christianity.

No, it's not. It's very relevant to Christianity. It describes the commands and actions of the Christian God. Just because he changed the rules later doesn't mean he didn't do the actions he's credited with in the Old Testament, does it?

 

[Falvlun]

The question in the OP was:


Not "Do you think G-d told them it was ok to kill babies?" "Not if the leader of your nation told you to kill babies, would you?"(Which, I think, is a much better question)

The death of infants at any time in history, or even in the present, has a very well known term. It is called "collateral damage" and is considered perfectly acceptable by those we chose to follow.

Just because it happens doesn't make it right. Also, what if people (in wars) went out of their way to kill the babies. Isn't that a bit different than a baby getting killed because a stray bullet happened to hit it?

 

[Tarheeler]

I don't understand how this is different from what I'm saying. Either God told the Israelites to slaughter babies or he didn't. If he didn't, then the Israelites must have thought God told them to do it (since they wrote down that God told them to do it). If this was the case, then they were mistaken (since God never actually told them to do it; they just thought he did since they were "incorporating their religion into their customs.")

So, you don't think there is absolutely any purpose to the story of the Israelites slaughtering the Amekelite babies? The Jews just made the whole thing up for no reason. It's just some light reading before bedtime.

Sorry, but I don't accept the "either-or" scenarios. I can't think of many of instances when something has to be one or the other with absolutely no alternatives.

As I've before, if you want to take a literalistic view go right ahead. But don't insist that I share it with you.

The history in the Torah wasn't recorded as it happened and it wasn't recorded for accuracy. It is the combination of the history of both a people and a religion written over hundreds of years. In that light, I can see plenty of space for the custom of slaughtering one's enemies down to the last infant to develop a divine motivation.

As for purpose, it helps to show the customs, culture, and belief systems of the authors and the people of the time.

 

[Rakhel]

Just because it happens doesn't make it right. Also, what if people (in wars) went out of their way to kill the babies. Isn't that a bit different than a baby getting killed because a stray bullet happened to hit it?

No, it's not. It's war. Plain and simple.
I'm not saying I like it or even approve of it, but it happens.

Our leaders tell us that for "our protection and safety" because the terrorists are in that town, we must destroy it. It does not matter who is in it. Doesn't matter the age of the villagers.

Or how often, during a hostage situation, do the SWAT team's leader just decide that maybe, just maybe it is better to go in, guns blazing, and take out the hostage holder. If someone gets hit by a bullet, "oh well, at least we got the bad guy and the victims are better off anyways."?

In ancient times, most were told, by their leaders, that "god" told them that that other village is bad and must be destroyed. It made it easier to accept. "god told me to do this nasty thing to this beautiful baby, who just happens to look like my own, because it will grow up and attack our village and kill my children. It must be done. 'god' knows best."

 

[Falvlun]

Sorry, but I don't accept the "either-or" scenarios. I can't think of many of instances when something has to be one or the other with absolutely no alternatives.

As I've before, if you want to take a literalistic view go right ahead. But don't insist that I share it with you.

The history in the Torah wasn't recorded as it happened and it wasn't recorded for accuracy. It is the combination of the history of both a people and a religion written over hundreds of years. In that light, I can see plenty of space for the custom of slaughtering one's enemies down to the last infant to develop a divine motivation.

As for purpose, it helps to show the customs, culture, and belief systems of the authors and the people of the time.

I am entertaining your idea that the Israelites attributed the "kill the babies!" command to God when they really were just blinded by their own cultural customs. How is that me taking the literalistic view?

My either/or's were pretty clear cut: Either God said it or he didn't. What's the alternative? If God didn't say it, but the Israelites claim he did (which they do), then they were either mistaken or lying. What's the alternative? I was giving them the benefit of the doubt in saying that they were mistaken.

Even if the mistake came later (ie, Israelites slaughter babies because that's what they do. Later on, when reporting the fact, the Israelites claim that they slaughtered babies because God told them to do it. They probably even believe that was the case.) the mistake still happened. You are just passing the buck to a different generation.

 

[Falvlun]

No, it's not. It's war. Plain and simple.
I'm not saying I like it or even approve of it, but it happens.

Our leaders tell us that for "our protection and safety" because the terrorists are in that town, we must destroy it. It does not matter who is in it. Doesn't matter the age of the villagers.

Or how often, during a hostage situation, do the SWAT team's leader just decide that maybe, just maybe it is better to go in, guns blazing, and take out the hostage holder. If someone gets hit by a bullet, "oh well, at least we got the bad guy and the victims are better off anyways."?

In ancient times, most were told, by their leaders, that "god" told them that that other village is bad and must be destroyed. It made it easier to accept. "god told me to do this nasty thing to this beautiful baby, who just happens to look like my own, because it will grow up and attack our village and kill my children. It must be done. 'god' knows best."

If your point is "It's war and therefore it's ok to kill babies because it's going to happen anyway" then I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

[Tarheeler]

I am entertaining your idea that the Israelites attributed the "kill the babies!" command to God when they really were just blinded by their own cultural customs. How is that me taking the literalistic view?

My either/or's were pretty clear cut: Either God said it or he didn't. What's the alternative? If God didn't say it, but the Israelites claim he did (which they do), then they were either mistaken or lying. What's the alternative? I was giving them the benefit of the doubt in saying that they were mistaken.

Even if the mistake came later (ie, Israelites slaughter babies because that's what they do. Later on, when reporting the fact, the Israelites claim that they slaughtered babies because God told them to do it. They probably even believe that was the case.) the mistake still happened. You are just passing the buck to a different generation.

I've given you alternatives. I explained my view on it.

Have a good one.

 

[Rakhel]

I said it happens. I did say that I am will to accept the reality of the world we live in. I did not say I was ok with it.